Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.  Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.  But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.  Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of 

　　automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.  

　　The argument above presents a sound case for arguing that if the region of Forestville wants to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should consider reducing the speed limit to what it was before the increase in speed limit took place 6 months previously. However, there are some intermediate steps that one could take before jumping to the conclusion that reducing the speed limit is the only way in which traffic accidents can be reduced.  

　　First of all, I would examine the actual number of traffic accidents that occurred before and after the speed limit increase and compare this to the size of the region and its driving population. For example, if the Forestville region's driving population is 1 million people, and the traffic accidents for a 6-month period before the speed increase totaled 100, then the 15% increase would amount to an additional 16 traffic accidents, or 116 total. For a population of 1 million, there may be other solutions to this increase besides reducing the speed limit to what it was. (The comparison to the region of Elmsford would only be helpful if the regions driving demography is comparable in terms of size and scope.) A public education campaign emphasizing driver safety and safe driving techniques may suffice to reduce the number of traffic accidents. Especially considering that if the number of accidents relative to the population is somewhat small, it is a fairly safe driving population anyway.  

　　In addition, I would consider lengthening the time of the study. Six months may be a relatively short period of time for which to study the rate of traffic accidents. Upon a closer examination of when the accidents occurred, one might ascertain that most of the driving accidents occurred within a month of raising the speed limit, but that there have been relatively few additional accidents since that first phase-in period. Lengthening the study to a one-year period would help adjust for any untypical statistics and paint a more accurate picture of the long-term affects of the speed limit increase.  

　　I would also examine what else was occurring in the region during the period of the study. For example, was there a major highway construction project happening during this time which would have added to the unsafe nature of raod travel? Are there any alternative explanations for why the increase in traffic accidents could have occurred, or is the increase in speed limit the sole variable? Looking at the type of accidents that occurred, I would examine whether these are the types of car accidents one would expect from traveling at a faster speed to corroborate the cause and effect relationship. Comments: 

　　As in the sample 6 response, this writer sees some logic in assuming a connection between the higher speed limit in Forestville and the increase in auto accidents.  Unlike the sample 6 on this topic, this response is neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed.  The writer makes four points in the critique:  

　　-- A statistical analysis might suggest that the 15% increase in    accidents is not as significant as it might seem. 

　　-- A car safety education campaign might be a better way to solve the    problem. 

　　-- A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major    conclusions. 

　　-- Other factors could have caused the increase in accidents.  

　　Although each of these points is developed and sensibly supported, the critique is not sufficiently full to warrant a score of 6.  The essay demonstrates good control but not mastery of the elements of writing: it contains good variety in syntax, including effective use of rhetorical questions.  The occasional flaws (e.g., the somewhat garbled syntax in paragraph 3: ".time for which to study the rate???") do not detract from the overall strong quality of the critique.  For all of these reasons, this response is strong but not outstanding, and thus merits a score of 5.